How Trump Can Make Intellectual Property Great Again

On the path to making America great again, President-elect Donald Trump will have a tremendous opportunity to reverse the steady slide away from a property rights-oriented American patent system.

There are good reasons to believe a Trump administration will readily grasp this critical problem and work to revitalize the American patent regime.

First, someone like Trump who has succeeded so well on the world’s biggest stages in real estate development will readily understand the fundamental need for sound, secure, enforceable property rights. After all, you face huge risks and problems developing real estate if you haven’t first secured the rights to that property.

The same holds true for developing and commercializing an invention if you don’t first gain the rights to its intellectual property. It would be foolish to start down the path of commercializing a new wireless telecommunications technology, a cutting-edge implantable medical device, or a new biopharmaceutical therapy without first securing the proper patent rights.

It is vital to secure the freedom of innovators to operate by securing for them the relevant patents, or by licensing that intellectual property from the patent owner. Otherwise, innovators will be vulnerable to intellectual property infringement, which is akin to trespassing on or even stealing someone else’s real property.

Second, the restoration of strong, secure patent rights fits in with the Trump-Pence vision for making America great again: tax reform, regulatory reform, reinvigorating U.S. manufacturing, and rebuilding our military might.

While making corporations like Carrier and Ford Motor Co. curb their outsourcing strategies may do some good, it isn’t sufficient.

Revitalizing our system of patent property rights will incentivize massive private investment into the discovery, research, and development stages of innovation. These risky stages may take years to lead to commercialization, but they are essential for clearing the way for new inventions.

Only confidence in an enforceable right to your own inventions translates into the kinds of research and development that result in new manufacturing plants, good-paying jobs, and continued innovation.

Likewise, to strengthen national security, we must ensure that we create and produce in America the components and parts to our military and national security material and sensitive equipment.

Allowing China and other foreign countries the easy opportunity to steal American intellectual property or to install malware into computers that run our energy grids or warplanes, for instance, creates tremendous national security and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Trump gets this.

Similarly, the Trump administration could stand up for U.S. intellectual property rights abroad by threatening real consequences when foreign governments deny U.S. businesses due process, use questionable antitrust claims to devalue or to appropriate their intellectual property, or otherwise advantage their own domestic companies and harm American firms.

Third, Donald Trump Jr. has experienced the anti-intellectual property behavior of the anti-patent side. MacroSolve, a mobile technology firm that the president-elect’s son was involved with, found its patents being infringed by incumbent companies.

When the small company tried to defend its patents, the big companies invoked the “patent troll” smear and kept right on infringing—economically benefiting from the unauthorized use of the stolen technology in the marketplace while refusing to pay to license MacroSolve’s patents.

The younger Trump explained the problem in a 2012 op-ed in The Daily Caller:

Not every company that brings suit for software patent infringement is an exploiter. Some are genuine tech innovators with a real historical and financial investment in their ideas. To conflate these two situations, as many opponents of software patent litigation do routinely, unfairly maligns companies that deserve to reap the fruits of their labor.

The same can be said for legitimate inventors in garages, university labs, and corporate research and development people who are inventing the next immunotherapy, semiconductor, advanced material, or robotic device. Just as Trump Jr. learned, all these creators deserve the exclusive right to their inventions.

Fourth, when it comes to presidential administrations, personnel is policy—and several Trump picks bode well for restoring patent rights.

Certainly, Vice President-elect Mike Pence grasps the economic importance of Indiana’s inventive life sciences sector and other manufacturing. He values Indiana’s academic assets of invention and tech transfer such as Purdue University. Explaining the importance of the Bayh-Dole Act and the Hatch-Waxman Act—two landmark patent laws from recent decades—should resonate with Pence.

Wilbur Ross, Trump’s commerce secretary nominee, considers intellectual property an asset on which a business or entrepreneur can raise capital. He also backs strong enforcement of intellectual property rights, and he understands the close link between manufacturing and invention.

Intellectual property expert Peter Harter recently catalogued Ross’ pro-intellectual property record in IPWatchdog, citing Ross’ “zero tolerance for [intellectual property] theft.”

Josh Wright, a former commissioner for the Federal Trade Commission, currently heads the Trump transition’s antitrust efforts.

Unlike antitrust leadership in the Obama administration, Wright has opposed using antitrust laws to devalue patents out of fear of an unproven theory known as patent holdup, which says the patent system threatens the rate of innovation in the U.S. economy. This theory lacks empirical evidence, and it should not hold sway in the Trump administration.

Thus, the incoming administration could well integrate strong patent rights for inventors—individual, corporate, and academic alike—into its overarching economic strategy. Returning our intellectual property regime and patent property rights to their roots would take us far toward making America great again. (For more from the author of “How Trump Can Make Intellectual Property Great Again” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ft. Lauderdale Shooter Another ‘Known Wolf’ Let Go by FBI

It is uncertain the motive or mental state of the man who walked off a plane in the Fort Lauderdale airport, loaded a gun, and murdered five people. What we do know is that he basically turned himself in to the FBI and once again the Bureau did nothing when confronted with the possibility that he had been influenced by radical Islam. This continues a disturbing trend of law enforcement knowing that specific violent jihadis, or known wolves, exist — and not doing anything to prevent attacks.

From Omar Mateen, the jihadi who shot up a gay nightclub, to the jihadi who set off a bomb in Manhattan, to seemingly countless others, the FBI has known about specific terrorists before they carried out attacks. The FBI has time and time again caught and released these jihadis, and yet again that appears to be the case.

It is uncertain if Esteban Santiago, the man in custody for the horrific attack, is a true believer in a radical Islamic ideology, or a severely mentally unstable person who carried out jihad because of the voices in his head. What is undeniable is that he walked into a FBI office in Alaska and told them “voices” were making him do things.

He told officials he was hearing voices in his head, some of which were telling him to join ISIS and watch their videos, and was taken to hospital for a mental health evaluation.

Santiago, who also told the FBI the government controlled his mind, gunned down 13 people at Fort Lauderdale airport today, killing five and injuring eight.

After the evaluation, and after agreeing to seek help for his mental issues, Santiago was freed. It looks as though there was very little monitoring of him afterwards. There also appears to have been no follow up or monitoring of Santiago, nor an attempt to use existing laws and due process to suspend his right to carry a gun, something that is permissible under current law.

Again, it is very much unsure at this stage if Santiago is an actual convert to radical Islam. But he did flash what is known as, for lack of a better term, the ISIS gang sign in a social media photo.

If, in fact, if it turns out that Santiago is mentally unstable and not a true jihadi, that brings another government agency into focus: the VA. It is well known that the VA health system has been letting down our nation’s veterans at an alarming rate, especially the mental well-being of those veterans. It has been reported that Santiago recently spent a tour of duty in Iraq. His family said that he was not the same since coming back.

The suspect’s aunt Maria Ruiz Rivera claimed the alleged shooter “lost his mind” while fighting in Iraq.

When quizzed why Santiago may have opened fire at passengers, her husband, Hernan Rivera, said: “No idea. Only thing I could tell you was when he came out of Iraq, he wasn’t feeling too good.”

No matter if Santiago was a true believing jihadi, radicalized while in Iraq, or a veteran who did not get the health care he deserved from the VA, it is beyond doubt that our government dropped the ball once again. President-elect Trump has promised to revamp both law enforcement’s stance toward jihad and the VA. The attack in Fort Lauderdale proves that new focus cannot come fast enough. (For more from the author of “Ft. Lauderdale Shooter Another ‘Known Wolf’ Let Go by FBI” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

America’s CIA, FBI and NSA Continue to Lose Credibility, Issue Politicized Second Russian Hacking Report

The report “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” released on January 6th by the Director of National Intelligence could be classified as “spam,” an irrelevant message sent over the Internet to large numbers of users for the purposes of advertising.

Out of the twenty-five pages, there is what some may describe as “news”, if you believe in assessments rather than evidence, of which none is provided:

(1) The heads of Obama’s three intelligence-gathering agencies, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA) assess that, “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump” (disclaimer – I had a clear preference for Trump too);

(2) the three agencies “did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election,” but none of the Russian activities were “involved in vote tallying”;

(3) Obama’s political appointees “assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks,” although any link between Russian intelligence and Wikileaks was not identified;

(4) “Disclosures [from the Democratic National Committee and senior Democrat officials] through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries,” that is, the Democrats really said/did those things.

The bulk of the report, however, simply provides information about US intelligence analysis techniques, scope and sourcing, previously published material and describes:

“longstanding Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations-such as cyber activity-with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or ‘trolls,'” especially the role of RT (formerly Russia Today), the “Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet.”

None of that is exactly “news” as the report itself admits:

“During the Cold War, the Soviet Union used intelligence officers, influence agents, forgeries, and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin, according to a former KGB archivist.”

What is interesting is an article by another “Russia’s state-run propaganda” outlet, Sputnik News, which said that Annex A of the US intelligence report claims that “Kremlin’s TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US,” but buried at the bottom of that page is a note stating, “This annex was originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center, now the Open Source Enterprise.”

That is, the information cited in the US intelligence report “to provide evidence of RT influencing the American public [in 2016] was compiled in December 2012.”

According to Sputnik News, “The report focuses on television shows and interviews that took place four years before Trump was elected, and well before he was even a politician” and that two RT shows, Breaking the Set and Truthseeker, mentioned in the US intelligence report, were off air before the 2016 election season began.

I would not be terribly shocked to learn that Russian intelligence hacked Democratic Nation Committee computers and John Podesta’s personal email account on Putin’s orders and provided information from those activities to WikiLeaks and DCLeaks.

Neither the first nor the second intelligence report, however, provide direct evidence to support that accusation, but the report authors rely on Americans’ natural inclination to believe it.

The lack of evidence, the timing of the revelations as well as the delayed punitive measures taken against Russia, generate skepticism.

Public reports of alleged Russian hacking surfaced in October 2016 and it was probably known to the US intelligence community much earlier, as their report implies.

Why weren’t Russians expelled, sanctions applied and reports produced prior to the election?

One wonders if any of what has occurred after the election, would have, if Hillary Clinton had won on November 8th.

So, what is the point of the ex post facto intelligence revelations and the diplomatic punishment of Russia other than a result of Obama’s failed Russian foreign policy, his personal animosity towards Putin, a ruse to discredit the election of Donald Trump and a means to hamper the incoming administration?

Perhaps, the Obama Administration can issue a report on that. (For more from the author of “America’s CIA, FBI and NSA Continue to Lose Credibility, Issue Politicized Second Russian Hacking Report” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hollywood Celeb Donates ‘MasterChef’ Winnings to Terror Supporting Org

On the surface, it appeared as if Kal Penn committed a noble deed.

This week, Penn won the “MasterChef Celebrity Countdown” contest in a Fox TV special, securing a $25,000 donation for a charity of his choice. The Hollywood celebrity decided to give the cash to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

Penn, best known for playing Kumar in the “Harold & Kumar” stoner movie comedies, previously served in President Obama’s White House Office of Public Engagement. A committed leftist like the rest of Hollywood, Penn often articulates his political views on social media.

Though UNRWA postures itself as a simple relief agency for Palestinian refugees, its presence in the Middle East has actually worsened the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead of solving the Palestinian territorial crisis, UNRWA has helped to move it into perpetuity.

Originally, the United Nations organization only recognized 750,000 Palestinians as “refugees.” But the U.N. has expanded the definition for Palestinian refugees to include original refugees’ children and grandchildren, which has expanded the total to above 5 million. This puts Palestinians in a refugee league of their own.

The U.N.’s other refugee agency, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), does not allow other refugees to pass down their status to their kids and grandkids. And also unlike UNHCR, UNRWA does not promote resettling their “refugees” into countries that might be willing to take them in. Instead, they keep Palestinians in an endless state of dependency, with an ever-growing roster.

Worse, the Relief and Works Agency has essentially embedded itself with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip. UNRWA has employed actual terrorists and Nazi sympathizers, and uses its U.N.-funded schools to push false, exterminationist, anti-Semitic narratives about Jews and Israel.

The U.N. outfit has been caught several times stockpiling missiles for Hamas in children’s schools, and the agency’s construction materials sometimes end up in Hamas’ homemade tunnels, which are used to infiltrate Israel and commit terror attacks.

The United States remains the top contributor to UNRWA. In 2015, the U.S. taxpayers contributed $380 million toward the agency’s projects.

By all indications, Kal Penn, like UNRWA, is not a big fan of the state of Israel.

In 2014, as Israel was under bombardment from Hamas rockets, Penn vented his frustrations with U.S. policy. He disagreed with the rearming of Israel in its battle with Palestinian terrorism. Penn took to Twitter, writing: “Wow, guess we’re not serious about a ceasefire.”

(For more from the author of “Hollywood Celeb Donates ‘MasterChef’ Winnings to Terror Supporting Org” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Society Isn’t Normalizing Mental Illness. It’s Medicalizing Normalcy

In a recent syndicated column published by Conservative Review, writer Ben Shapiro argues that society needs to stop “mainstreaming” mental illness, challenging the I’m-Okay-You’re-Okay mentality that allows people to engage in deviant or aberrant behavior without censure.

He describes a case in which a woman who enjoyed being led around by her boyfriend on a leash has disappeared, suggesting that the tragedy could have been avoided if she had been given the proper treatment.

But is it true that modern society is increasingly accepting of mental illness as normal behavior? In fact, just the opposite. Many things formerly considered within the bounds of normal human variation are now classified as illnesses and treated as such.

An analysis of the Fourth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) found that, based on its diagnostic criteria, 46.4 percent of Americans will have a “disorder” at some point in their lives.

But because the mind itself is allegedly sick, should people diagnosed with these conditions be robbed of their agency and treated like children at the whim of their doctors, their families, or the state?

The psychiatric profession insists that mental illness is “just like any other illness,” but this is obviously untrue. Bodily illness can be diagnosed objectively from a detectable pathology. The presence of cancerous cells in the brain leads to a diagnosis of brain cancer, even if no symptoms are presenting.

Mental illness, on the other hand, has no such pathology. How could it? The mind is an intangible, unobservable concept. Therefore, mental illnesses must be diagnosed solely based on a subjective interpretation of behavior. The symptom is indistinguishable from the disease itself, meaning that all such diagnoses are opinion-based rather than objective.

And how do we define mental illness anyway?

We’re frequently cautioned against treating delusions as reality, but who is going to serve as the arbiter of what constitutes reality? By this definition, an atheist would be justified in classifying all people of faith as delusional and mentally ill for their belief in a higher power. To an atheist, a believer talking to God is no different than James Stewart talking to a giant rabbit in “Harvey,” and given the chance, he will treat the two equivalently. Is that really a road we want to go down, especially when our political leaders are becoming increasingly secular?

At the core of the question is this: Are we justified in depriving individuals of their freedom, of forcibly hospitalizing (read: imprisoning) and medicating them against their will because they behave in a way that we find odd or difficult to understand?

It’s important to remember that, in the past, Americans were diagnosed as mentally ill for being gay, for engaging in masturbation, and, in the days of slavery, for trying to escape from their masters. Benjamin Rush, the father of American psychiatry, thought the consumption of alcohol and opposition to the American Revolution constituted mental illness. These perfectly normal behaviors were regarded as so aberrant as to justify depriving individuals of their freedoms “for their own good.” And while these specific conditions are no longer recognized as mental illness, far more supposed disorders have arisen to take their place.

Wanting to be led around on a leash is odd, bizarre even, but the claim that such behavior justifies imprisonment and drugging is incomparably more horrific. If any unpopular behavior can be called a sickness, only conformists are safe from oppression. And who wants to be a conformist anyway?

America is supposed to be a country in which minority opinions, beliefs, and behaviors are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Ayn Rand said that the smallest minority is the individual, and I would add to this that the individual with unaccountably odd behavior is smaller still. It’s all well and good to claim such people are irrational, but to that I will respond with two quotes from the great economist Ludwig von Mises.

From “Epistemological problems in Economics”:

The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct.

And from “Socialism”:

If a man drinks wine and not water I cannot say he is acting irrationally. At most I can say that in his place I would not do so. But his pursuit of happiness is his own business, not mine.

I’ll leave you with this question: Whom do you trust to decide which behaviors are “correct,” and are you willing to surrender your pursuit of happiness to white-coated experts who claim to know better? (For more from the author of “Society Isn’t Normalizing Mental Illness. It’s Medicalizing Normalcy” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Is What REAL Hope Looks Like: GOP Senators Fight for Families of Victims of Illegal Aliens

The 115th United States Congress has only been in session for a few days, but Republicans are already taking advantage of their overwhelming majority.

On Thursday, Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa (F, 59%) released a statement announcing that she, along with Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Ind. (D, 66%), Deb Fischer, R-Neb. (F, 55%), and Ben Sasse, R-Neb. (A, 94%), reintroduced a piece of legislation that would require federal officials to take custody of illegal immigrants “charged with a crime resulting in the death or serious bodily injury of another person.”

The legislation, known as Sarah’s Law, was named to honor Sarah Root, a 21-year-old Iowa woman who was killed last January in the “sanctuary city” of Omaha, Neb., by 19-year-old Edwin Mejia, an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk three times over the legal limit, and drag racing. Mejia, a Honduran native who entered the United States as an “unaccompanied minor” in 2013, disappeared after posting the $5,000 bail and has been at large ever since.

“Mr. Mejia has been on the [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] Most Wanted List for more than nine months — that’s time he should have been behind bars,” Senator Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in the press release this week. “Congress has an opportunity to make sure this never happens again. Sarah’s Law would make it absolutely clear that ICE must immediately detain any illegal alien who kills someone.”

Thursday’s move to reintroduce the law offers families of individuals killed by illegal immigrants renewed hope that their loved ones will be vindicated. If passed, the legislation would require ICE officials to “make reasonable efforts to identify and provide relevant information to the crime victims or their families.”

“It is unconscionable that nearly one year after Sarah’s death, Edwin Mejia remains at-large, and the fact remains that today U.S. immigration law does not require federal immigration authorities to detain those here illegally who harm American citizens,” Senator Ernst said. “Although nothing can bring Sarah back to her family or heal the wounds of such unimaginable loss, we have an obligation to the American people to ensure that no citizen falls victim to this injustice again. Sarah’s Law is about honoring Sarah, and her legacy; I have already had conversations with the incoming administration, and am hopeful that they will work with Congress to pursue

In his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in July, Donald Trump described Sarah Root as “just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.” The president-elect made illegal immigration a focal point of his presidential campaign, inviting family members of those killed by illegals to join him onstage at the RNC and to speak at various campaign stops.

“We are sadly hearing of these instances far too often. If the Obama administration won’t protect our citizens, Congress will make it clear illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes will be detained. We must do everything possible to prevent the pain Sarah’s loved ones and too many others have endured,” said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. (F, 51%).

Since Sarah’s Law was first introduced in June 2016, the legislation has gained new support from Senators Jerry Moran, R-Kan. (D, 67%), Pat Roberts, John Thune, R-S.D. (F, 44%), Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%), and Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. (C, 72%). Congressman David Young, R-Ind. (F, 38%) will lead a House companion bill.

Sen. Cruz indicated that the November election afforded Congress “an extraordinary chance” to strengthen border security and restore the rule of law in a post-Obama America.

“The last eight years under the Obama Administration have seen a disastrous deterioration of the rule of law and an unwillingness to justly prosecute those who break our laws,” said Senator Cruz. “But now we have an extraordinary chance to reverse that course, secure our border, and strengthen our immigration laws. I am proud to be a sponsor of Sarah’s Law and other similar law enforcement measures that will deter illegal immigration, and ensure those who disregard our immigration laws and bring harm to our citizens are held accountable.” (For more from the author of “This Is What REAL Hope Looks Like: GOP Senators Fight for Families of Victims of Illegal Aliens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When It’s Black on White Crime the Left Goes Color Blind

Why is it that when whites engage in violent acts against blacks, many on the left assume that those criminal acts must be hate-based, but when the tables are turned and the violence is black on white, many on the left no longer see color, looking for any explanation other than racial hate? Why the double standard?

According to CNN’s Don Lemon, the horrific kidnapping and torture of a mentally disabled white man by a group of four black teenagers — who had the audacity and stupidity to air it on Facebook live — wasn’t really evil.

Responding to Matt Lewis, who had commented on the extreme “evil” nature of the crime, Lemon replied, “I don’t think it’s evil. I don’t think it’s evil. I think these are young people, and I think they have bad home training.”

Not evil? Seriously? Just young people with bad home training?

Lemon’s comment drew immediate scorn, including tweets like this: “Hey @donlemon was Dylan Roof evil? Or just the victim of bad home training?” (Dylan Roof was the young white man who slaughtered 9 black parishioners during a church service in South Carolina.)

Does anyone for a moment think that Lemon, who himself is black, would have reacted the same way had this been a horrific, white on black crime?

To be clear, I’m glad that white on black violence has been exposed in recent years thanks to cell phone cameras, and to the extent that whites specifically targeted blacks — as in the case of Dylan Roof — our outrage should be even more acute.

But why shouldn’t we be just as concerned with targeted black on white violence, as in the many examples of the infamous “knockout games”?

I understand that, in the eyes of many blacks, to reply immediately to the phrase “black lives matter” with the phrase “all lives matter” is to minimize the point they were making. But at what point can we say, “White lives matter too”? Why is that forbidden?

A recent anti-white, MTV video even mocked the idea that “blue lives matter,” since people aren’t blue. Tell that to the widows and orphans of the cops who were killed in cold blood while serving our country this year.

Being on talk radio, I’ve heard from many God-fearing, church-going, authority-honoring black callers who shared with me their stories of being racially profiled, of experiencing discrimination, of even fearing for their lives at times simply because they were black, and I don’t doubt their stories for a moment.

While flying home recently, I was upgraded to first class and sat next to a black gentleman who could have passed for a former (or even current) football player. As we talked, he told me he was the president of a university, holding a J.D. and a Ph.D. When we discussed the issue of discrimination, he shared with me the obstacles he had to overcome and how, to this day, when he sits in first class, people look at him like he’s sitting in the wrong place or else assume he must be an athlete. After all, why else would a large black man be flying in first class?

So, to repeat, my intent here is not to minimize anti-black sentiment in America; my intent is to expose the hypocritical double standards, and this recent, ugly incident, has brought all this to the surface.

Remember that the torturers were yelling “f**k white people” and “f**k Trump” as they abused this young man, yet Democratic strategist Symone Sanders (also black), appearing on the same discussion panel with Don Lemon, wasn’t sure it was a hate crime. She said,

If we start going around and anytime someone says or does something egregious or bad and sickening in sense. In connection with the president-elect Donald Trump or even President Obama for that matter because of their political leanings, that’s slippery territory. That is not a hate crime.

I actually believe she has a point here, albeit a minor one, but again, it’s the double-standard and the hypocrisy that concern me, since this is the very thing we’ve been subjected to for the last 8 years, namely, assuming that white criticism of President Obama must be race-based. Yet when it’s black on white hatred in conjunction with black-on-Trump hatred, we have to tread carefully lest we head into “slippery territory.”

To ask the obvious question, what would Sanders have said if, two weeks before Obama’s first inauguration, four young white people kidnapped and tortured a mentally disabled black person, shouting, “f**k black people” and “f**k Obama”?

Wouldn’t hatred of Obama equal hatred of blacks in the eyes of Sanders, and wouldn’t she quickly brand this a glaring example of a dangerous hate crime that could be a portent of worse things to come? (For the record, within 24 hours of her statement quoted here, when pressed by Anderson Cooper, Sanders did acknowledge the kidnapping and torture as a hate crime, following the lead of the prosecutors.)

For a glaring example of hypocrisy, right from the White House, what about the statement of Press Secretary Josh Earnest, when pressed by the media about whether this was a hate crime?

He would not answer directly, since he claimed he had not yet discussed it with the president and was waiting for official word from law enforcement, stressing how important it was for them to do come to their conclusions first. But this is the very thing that the Obama administration has not done when controversial, white on black cases came to national attention.

To give one case in point, think back to the 2009 arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, a black man, by police Sgt. James Crowley, a white man.

When asked about the incident at a news conference that week, President Obama said, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played.”

“But,” he added, “I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3 … that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

Indeed, he stated, that the arrest shows “how race remains a factor in this society” — and to repeat, he said this without knowing the facts.

The charges against Gates were, in fact, dropped (he was trying to “break in” to his own house when a neighbor called to report the suspicious activity), but Sgt. Crowley had not acted stupidly, nor did the arrest have anything to do with race, which is one reason why President Obama subsequently invited Gates and Crowley to have a beer with him and Vice President Biden at the White House.

Yet when it comes to a heinous, black on white hate crime today, the White House doesn’t want to speak prematurely, wanting to let local law enforcement do its work.

After Earnest’s statement, President Obama did refer to the kidnapping and torture as a “despicable” hate crime, and other black voices, like Montel Williams, denounced the crime in the strongest terms. But the reaction of others, like Lemon and Sanders and Earnest, points to a larger issue, and it is one we can’t ignore.

As for Lemon’s contention that the kids were raised poorly, that may be true — although the grandmother who raised one of the accused kidnappers would strongly differ with that assessment — but plenty of people who commit evil acts were not raised well, and we don’t minimize their deeds because of their unfortunate upbringing. And, again, I doubt that Lemon would have made such an excuse had the racial tables been turned.

Of course, the whole category of “hate crimes” carries its own set of controversies, but that’s not the focus here. The focus is to expose left-wing, anti-white hypocrisy, and if we really care about justice, that means justice for all.

As for the black young people who committed this crime, while they deserve justice, I pray for their redemption as well, along with the physical and emotional recovery of the white young person who was abused.

(For more from the author of “When It’s Black on White Crime the Left Goes Color Blind” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Democratic Party Goes Left: Just What Republicans Want

In November, more than 8,750,000 Californians voted for Hillary Clinton; only about 4.5 million voted for Donald Trump. Similarly, New York went for Secretary Clinton by 4.55 million to 2.8 million votes, a substantial margin of 1.75 million ballots.

What you have just read constitutes about all the good news there is these days for the Democrats.

Much is being made in some quarters about the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. In fact, she did not.

Secretary Clinton won nearly 65.8 million votes, according to the authoritative Cook political report. Donald Trump won almost 63 million votes. The total variance was about 2.85 million votes in favor of the candidate who lost the Electoral College.

However, what has been reported almost nowhere is that 7.8 million votes were cast for other presidential candidates. Libertarian Gary Johnson, a relatively right-leaning former Republican, won 4.5 million votes. Independent Republican Evan McMullin took 725,000 ballots and the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle came out with 202,000. Together, that’s something over 5.4 million votes for non-Republican conservative presidential candidates nationwide.

The rather over-covered candidate of the Green Part, Jill Stein, received 1.46 million votes, and other third-party and predominantly liberal also-rans took about one million votes total.

The math is pretty straightforward: The Republican nominee and other conservative or conservative-leaning candidates accrued about 68.5 million votes. Secretary Clinton and other liberal candidates garnered about 68.2 million. In sum, as to the presidency, the Right beat the Left by roughly 300,000 votes. A rather narrow margin, yes, but the now-received fact that liberalism, in sheer numbers, beat conservatism is simply untrue.

Over the past eight years, the story of the Democrats’ future has become far shakier than the numbers just noted might indicate. As Eric Levitz writes in New York Magazine, a fortress of weary liberal elitism:

Since President Obama took office, more than 900 Democratic state legislators have been ousted. In January 2009, the party occupied 29 governor’s mansions. Today, it lays claim to 15. The GOP — the party that was supposed to be headed for a great crack-up — holds 33. In 24 states, Republicans control the Executive branch and both legislative houses. Of course, they now enjoy the same trifecta in Washington, D.C.

Only five states now have Democratic governors and state legislatures and the GOP controls 69 of 99 state legislative bodies. This pattern seems unlikely to change, given Democrats’ concentration in urban areas. As the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips notes, “Because Democrats are clustered in one area of (a) state, they have less of a say in who represents congressional (and state-level) districts in the rest of the state.”

Although as an unabashed partisan I rejoice in these numbers, I do not write the above to crow or to sneer at the Democratic Party. Rather, I report them to make a larger comment about a narrative now emerging, strongly, within that once-venerable political institution: Calls from many of its leading stalwarts to turn it harder Left-ward are profoundly ill-advised if Democrats ever care about winning nationally again.

“We’re spending all of our resources on broadcast television chasing this mythical unicorn white swing voter,” says Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher, who argues that the nation’s changing demographics — it is increasingly less white — demands less focus on disaffected lower-income white voters.

Eric Levitz summarizes the growing chorus of “turn Left, young man,” Democrats this way:

Instead of channeling that anger toward real, progressive solutions for the middle (and working) class’s legitimate problems, Trump directed it toward the most vulnerable people in our society, as right-wing populists always have. Clinton failed to counter this appeal, because she refused to embrace populist, class politics.

Former Democratic Senator and Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Lieberman, now an independent, said in a recent interview that he fears a “real attempt by the left-left” to seize control of the Democratic agenda and public appeal. His fear is justified: former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, former Obama Administration “Green Jobs” czar” Van Jones, and hard-Left Congressman Keith Ellison, among other prominent Democrats, are calling for this strategy explicitly.

Why is it unwise, politically? Because America is not a hard-Left country. Disproportionate Democratic majorities in New York and California do not a national majority make. As CNN reporter John King said shortly after the November election, “America is a center-right country. It is a lot more conservative, especially out in the heartland, than Democrats think.”

There is also a dynamic at play for which proponents of an aggressive liberal statism fail to account: The Electoral College is a device built into the Constitution that, unlike the finding of hitherto unimagined “rights” lurking in fanciful constitutional penumbras, cannot suddenly be reinterpreted to mean what its liberal opponents want. Its mechanism is very clear and undisputed, articulated with exactitude in a written text.

Can the Constitution be amended? Sure. But is populist rage so great that people across the country would support altering its plain text, one that has endured and served well since 1789? Will such an enterprise be appealing to them, especially since such a change would calcify the suzerainty of the liberal regions into the distant future? No — or to borrow some language from Winston Churchill, this is nonsense up with which the American people will not put.

So, how do the Democrats reclaim political viability, especially at a time when recalibrating congressional districts (which determine presidential electors) in their favor is a pipe dream? I have no particular wisdom for them, other than that, as a conservative, I hope they do go radically to the Left. That way the defeat of dangerous and extreme liberalism will accelerate and deepen all the more. (For more from the author of “The Democratic Party Goes Left: Just What Republicans Want” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

When Marriage Can Be Anything, Marriage Can Be Anything

It is only irrational animus, bigotry, and hatred that causes some to deny that human beings and fairground rides cannot marry. Love is love, and sometimes love extends to the soaring tracks, twisting hairpin curves, and thrilling loop-de-loops of roller coasters.

Yes. Two women have married, not each other, which would not be unusual these days, but each has married a roller coaster. Not the same roller coaster, of course; that would be absurd; different roller coasters.

One lady, a Miss Wolfe, 33, church organist, fell in love with the roller coaster in Knoebels Amusement Park, Pennsylvania. According to one report, “Although she faces discrimination from employers, most of her family and friends have been supportive. ‘I’m not hurting anyone and I can’t help it,’ she said. ‘It’s a part of who I am.’”

Don’t scoff. No one chooses to be an objectum-sexual; it is something which is forced upon one. What’s that? What’s an objectum-sexual? As defined by the second wedded lady, Linda, 56, who tied her knot to the backside of a roller coaster, an objectum-sexual is a person who “has romantic feelings for inanimate objects.”

Psychology Today reports many are objectum-sexuals, folks who view their objects of love as “equal” partners. Who isn’t for Equality? Reports are coming in from the across the globe of objectum-sexuals marrying smart phones, steam engines, video game characters, rocks, trees, dolls, electronic devices, radios, pillows, cars, and, yes, the Eiffel Tower.

The Self-Sexuals

Animus, bigotry, and hatred not only motivates people to deny the rights of objectum-sexuals, but also to disparage the needs and desires of self-sexuals. Self-sexuals are people who love best themselves, making it natural that the objects of their matrimonial instincts are, well, themselves.

No less conservative an organ than Good Housekeeping reports that “self-marriage is a small but growing movement, with consultants and self-wedding planners popping up across the world.”

One such person is Brooklynite Erika Anderson who recently married herself. “It wasn’t an easy decision,” she said. “I had cold feet for 35 years. But then I decided it was time to settle down. To get myself a whole damn apartment. To celebrate birthday #36 by wearing an engagement ring and saying: YES TO ME. I even made a registry, because this is America.”

There is even, because this is America, a website, I Married Me, which advises readers to “Choose love.” Love is, after all, love. The site provides the unofficial motto for the self-marriage movement, “To honor myself is to understand and acknowledge that I am worthy”. Anybody can marry themselves, even folks who are already married to others, or to objects.

“It’s not a legal process — you won’t get any tax breaks for marrying yourself. It’s more a ‘rebuke’ of tradition, says Rebecca Traister, author of All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation.

Rebuke?

The Rebuke of History and Tradition and Nature

Tradition insists that marriage is between one man, one woman; the two become “one flesh.” The pairs came together to procreate and care for not just each other, but for their created families. Marriages were the result of the natural state of mankind, driven by necessities of biology, the environment, and even religion. No government dared risk interfering with this fundamental and organic process. To have meddled would have invited charges of monumental hubris.

But things change. Governments recognized Equality trumped Nature, and so mandated that history and tradition be overthrown. But first they were borrowed from. History and tradition insisted that marriage was the state between two people, so government meddling dictated any two people could marry.

But it will quickly be realized (and is being realized) that history and tradition can be no guide whatsoever, because history and tradition, while they do say marriage was for pairs, also insist, in the strongest possible terms, that marriage is only for man-woman pairs.

So history and tradition must be rebuked.

Those who want to keep with capital-Tradition are no longer allowed to do so. Traditionalists are still allowed to marry one another in the traditional way, but they are now forced to agree that government-defined “marriages” are equivalent to actual marriages. Governments have not, as yet, moved to “bless” object- and self-marriages, but there is no good reason for them not to.

And if people can marry roller coasters and themselves, why cannot sons marry their mothers? Cosmopolitan reports, “A Mom Fell in Love With Her Son and Plans to Have Children With Him,” which they call “genetic sexual attraction”. There is already a forum for interested people. Why not marriage?

After all, when marriage can be anything, marriage can be anything. (For more from the author of “When Marriage Can Be Anything, Marriage Can Be Anything” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Let’s Be Pro-Life Champions, Not Just Vote Casters

“Radical hospitality and generosity.” That’s a phrase I heard Carter Snead, a law professor at Notre Dame, use this fall and I can’t get it out of my head. It’s an attractive phrase. It draws you in. It seems to call out to us that we are not alone, suggesting home and welcome. It’s a phrase that radiates hope and promise. It’s also a call to action.

It’s a notion similar to the one expressed by the words of Emma Lazarus inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Are we going to live up to these words in the foreseeable future?

That’s a real question people have on their hearts and minds. There’s an uncertainty in the air, which centers on a Washington in transition. And with the Republican party in the majority in Congress, one of the first issues that has come up is defunding Planned Parenthood. There are many columns about the merits of this; this is not one of them. I’m grateful for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s commitment here. But winning this issue should be beyond Republican vs. Democrat dynamics. It should be about “radical hospitality and generosity.” (Read more from “Let’s Be Pro-Life Champions, Not Just Vote Casters” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.